Just got my copy today, seems like a decent book.
Dave.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Defeating-Panzer-Stuka-Menace-British-Weapons/dp/1526787156
Dave.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Defeating-Panzer-Stuka-Menace-British-Weapons/dp/1526787156
British Ordnance Collectors Network
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Defeating the Panzer -Stuka Menace. David Lister
- Thread starter SG500
- Start date
Sounds interesting, but going by the preview of it on Google books it seems to say the No68 rifle grenade can be thrown by hand. Which doesn't really seem all that possible to me, but well what do I know? Maybe if you throw it really, really hard. And the bit about Australian weapons usage looks like it has wrongly transcribed "Murray switch" as "Murphey Switch". Is that what the book actually says? or is it something Google has stuffed up?
I wouldnt discredit a good book over a spelling mistake or typo error. I am sure a 68 could be thrown or dropped on a target from a height if you had no launching blanks left and you took in consideration the best possible cover to protect yourself. i bet there were ways for improvisation not official to the book to implement a device taught by the old hacks of the day, long lost and forgotten but would have put you in the glass house if you got caught. Lots of great info if you are a spigot fan of the Bombard PIAT Hedgehog flying dustbin etc, nicely detailed things i would never heard or knew about.
I didn't mention the spelling mistakes, I'm not that pedantic, but I'm also glad I'm not the only one who noticed them. I agree with you, typos do not invalidate the work, they certainly don't help though. Having said that I spent far longer than I should have looking for information on an excessively complicated and difficult to use "Murphey Switch", before realising the truth. I feel a bit stupid now.
Look at it this way, the section on Australian usage of the No.68, Blast Bomb, etc. appears to have been written based on material held at the AWM. Fortunately Snufkin has post the relevant bits here:http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/98334-Blast-Bomb?p=292259&viewfull=1#post292259 The book tells of a "2lb Ammonal charge attached to a No.68 grenade for greater range", so that's more than doubling the launched weight of a projectile that's already pretty hard on the rifle firing it, what's in the file reads more along the lines of "if 2lbs of HE placed outside didn't do that much, the 5.5oz in the rifle grenade will do less". That looks all the world like something has been lost in translation somewhere.
It's why I wanted to know if the preview is just borked somehow, or if that is a accurate example of the text.
Look at it this way, the section on Australian usage of the No.68, Blast Bomb, etc. appears to have been written based on material held at the AWM. Fortunately Snufkin has post the relevant bits here:http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/98334-Blast-Bomb?p=292259&viewfull=1#post292259 The book tells of a "2lb Ammonal charge attached to a No.68 grenade for greater range", so that's more than doubling the launched weight of a projectile that's already pretty hard on the rifle firing it, what's in the file reads more along the lines of "if 2lbs of HE placed outside didn't do that much, the 5.5oz in the rifle grenade will do less". That looks all the world like something has been lost in translation somewhere.
It's why I wanted to know if the preview is just borked somehow, or if that is a accurate example of the text.
It's just the preview on Google Books. If the publisher allows it, Google can show you a small randomised selection of pages/chapters of the text in a manner like you might flip through a book in a book store, I think it is a sort of try-before-you-buy scheme to get people to buy the ebook version from Google. This link might work for you: Stuka-Panzer Menace if not just search for Google books and the title, you should find it.
A little while back I was looking for some details on the No.68, the book was in the search results, it sounded interesting but I haven't figured out if it is worth the money yet. I saw the title here and thought it wouldn't hurt to ask if the preview is accurate or not.
A little while back I was looking for some details on the No.68, the book was in the search results, it sounded interesting but I haven't figured out if it is worth the money yet. I saw the title here and thought it wouldn't hurt to ask if the preview is accurate or not.
For the price I thought it was worth taking the risk. As with any book I'm sure there are areas it can be improved but for someone like myself who knows little about sprigot weapons it a great starting point to get up to speed on the subject. For the expert I'm sure it could form part of their library as there's sure to be snippets of new information in it that are of use.
Dave.
Quite right, but letting a book out into the wild full of typos is pretty lax.
For my Mills book we reprinted over 600 pages in the final checking process. It's very hard work but you have to do it. The author is the worst person to check their own work. It needs someone who knows nothing about the subject but knows how to read carefully, correcting all errors, be they typos or grammatical.
Also all ISBN registered books in the UK require copies to be sent to the main academic libraries. So your errors are there to see for ever!
Please tell me! The feedback I got from my first venture into publishing was incorporated into later works, which massively improved them. But unless I get told what's liked and disliked, I can't work them into it. For example, one reviewer said he didn't like the lack of index, so it got included. Equally, the first version of my sources list came in for criticism, so I've made sure to do a proper sources list from now on.
That's my stance on any history book. There is no definite version. Books have a long half life, but can quickly become superseded. for example they hang about for a long time, with wrong info. I remember reading a Book by David Fletcher where he says 'Of which noting is known'. I was sitting there was full description and knowledge of the item, and writing it into my previous book. Of course
We went through about six versions with the manuscript, between me and my copy editor which took several months of work. So where are the errors if you don't mind me asking? Are the majority in the Matilda Hedgehog section?
Sorry, I've not seen your book. I was talking in general terms.
To add to that I would add that at Detling in 2019 I met a man who had been in the publishing trade all his life. He told me that he had been asked to review one famous author's book of old soldiers tales from the Great War (he didn't say which) and had found over 70 factual errors in the first 100 pages. He returned it to source saying it needed much better fact checking and a response came back from the author that "they didn't care, and it would still make money"!
Just a few more thoughts on this one.
First of all thank you Listy for researching and writing the book. I now know a lot more about such things than I did before.
Secondly, I've just been on holiday for a week and couldn't put the book down, read it from cover to cover, some really interesting info and pics in there.
Give it a go guys, thumbs up from me
Dave.
First of all thank you Listy for researching and writing the book. I now know a lot more about such things than I did before.
Secondly, I've just been on holiday for a week and couldn't put the book down, read it from cover to cover, some really interesting info and pics in there.
Give it a go guys, thumbs up from me
Dave.
Last edited:
Thanks for the kind words, but I would like to add, it's not just me. The Matilda hedgehog was done by an Australian I know. It saved about a year of work having someone who already knew the topic do those two chapters.
The "-2", "0", "+2" markings you weren't sure why they were on the Bombard rounds, they are part of the standard markings for the unit weight system for anything with a calibre over 3.7", so in spite of it being a 29mm mortar someone has looked at the 6" diameter AT and 4" diameter APers rounds and marked them in accordance with regulations. Technically it doesn't stop at +/-2, but continues indefinitely. Practically though, to get to a greater magnitude the projectile would have to be so deformed it would likely be rejected on other grounds. You want something like the "Textbook of Ammunition 1936" Chapter 5.37 pg.145 for that. If the longer Practice 20/15lb. projectile is the one I think you were trying to describe (Training pamphlet, plate 4), that's a 3" mortar HE bomb body. I would expect it is unfinished, or a reject, or both. The band on it is where it would be turned to size to fit the mortar tube looks too proud to have been machined.
That picture of the unidentified teardrop shaped projectile sandwiched between a Hedgehogish thing and a 14lb. Anti Personnel bomb probably is just a 20lb. AT round with a cardboard aerodynamic fairing. If it is a Bombard launched projectile, then it has a gun barrel running up the guts of it. As the tail tube can burst, surrounding it with an explosive is not the safest idea, and adding weight further down the bomb effectively reduces the length of the arm the tail fins are operating on, meaning the tail fins have less authority to keep the bomb flying true. If it is the same length/diameter as a 20lb. AT round as it appears, and yet it weighs the same as the 20lb. projectile, then the additional volume could very easily be empty. And the 20lb. bomb was tested with and without such fairings: AWM54 905/23/6 - [Stores and blah blah blah] src: AWM Collection. The IWM H12300 photo looks to have the shorter sheet metal fairing, so must have been made before the use of fairings was dropped, it looks pretty beat-up, chipped, and dented.